Hi Tomasz,
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Vikas,
>
>
> On 17.03.2014 14:09, Vikas Sajjan wrote:
>>
>> Adds PMU support of PMU for Exynos5260. Suspend-to-RAM can be built on
>> top this.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Vikas Sajjan <vikas.sajjan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h | 26 ++++
>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c | 34 +++--
>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/pmu.c | 238
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/regs-pmu.h | 232
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h | 8 +
>> 5 files changed, 529 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
>> index aba6a2a..a17f701 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
>> @@ -56,6 +56,32 @@ enum sys_powerdown {
>> NUM_SYS_POWERDOWN,
>> };
>>
>> +enum running_cpu {
>> + EXYNOS5_KFC,
>> + EXYNOS5_ARM,
>> +};
>> +
>> +enum reg_op {
>> + REG_INIT, /* write new value */
>> + REG_RESET, /* clear with zero */
>> + REG_SET, /* bit set */
>> + REG_CLEAR, /* bit clear */
>> +};
>> +
>> +/* reg/value set */
>> +#define EXYNOS_PMU_REG(REG, VAL, OP) \
>> +{ \
>> + .reg = (void __iomem *)REG, \
>> + .val = VAL, \
>> + .op = OP, \
>> +}
>> +
>> +struct exynos_pmu_init_reg {
>> + void __iomem *reg;
>> + unsigned int val;
>> + enum reg_op op;
>> +};
>> +
>> extern unsigned long l2x0_regs_phys;
>> struct exynos_pmu_conf {
>> void __iomem *reg;
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
>> index 15af0ce..dbe9670 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
>> @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static int exynos_cpu_suspend(unsigned long arg)
>> outer_flush_all();
>> #endif
>>
>> - if (soc_is_exynos5250())
>> + if (soc_is_exynos5250() || soc_is_exynos5260())
>> flush_cache_all();
>
>
> I think it's the right time for this code to be restructured. Adding more
> and more SoCs over this cruft is making this code worse and worse.
>
I recently came across RFC [1] posted by pankaj on similar lines, did
you get a chance to have look at this series.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/2/69
> I believe this should be done as follows:
>
> - a generic struct describing particular PMU variant should be defined,
> with things like
>
> bool flush_cache_on_suspend;
> struct exynos_pmu_conf *pmu_conf;
>
> or even function pointers, like
>
> void (*cpu_suspend)(unsigned long arg);
>
> to handle things done currently using soc_is_*() macros, which we should get
> rid of.
>
> - a DT match table would bind particular compatible strings with respective
> PMU variants structs,
>
> - in general, this code should be made more like a normal driver, e.g. bind
> to a DT node and map registers dynamically.
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc"
> in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
